SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

Chapter-
Comment
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
and as potential contributors to the ensemble. Governments are
well enough aware of this dynamic and will try to lever it as much
as possible for their own common but differentiated purposes, and
have, of course, the power to decide on its ultimate shape, content
and message. In its current state the SPM is in fairly good shape to
face this process. However, a number of key messages need to be
strengthened---most particularly on the overwhelming significance
of fossil-fuelled energy for the emissions that cause climate change.
Proposals are made in subsequent specific comments on this
chapter
(Pat Finnegan, Grian)
SPM-20 0 A 0 0 0 0 Should make it clear that stabilisation scenarios are no in terms of
CO2eq, rather than the TARs CO2.
(Chris Mottershead, BP)
SPM-21 0 A 0 0 0 0 Makes the case well that technology and policy options are
available, and that many of these can be implemented at a modest
CO2 price, shifting the focus upon the political commitment to take
action - this represents real progress from the TAR
(Chris Mottershead, BP)
SPM-22 17 A 0 0 0 0 The SPM should include the clear results of chapter 6 on buildings,
in particular the supply-curves of conserved carbon dioxide
displayed on chapter 6 fig 6.4 page 40)
(ANTOINE BONDUELLE, Université Lille II)
SPM-23 0 A 0 0 0 0 Uncertainty needs to be covered better in the SPM than only in
point 8.
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-24 0 A 0 0 0 0 Uncertainty is not given sufficient attention in the SPM.
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-25 0 A 0 0 0 0 There appears to be little benefit from singling out a specific GHG
stabilisation level. It might be seen as being prescriptive.
SPM-26 1,
F
2
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
A 0 0 0 0 SPM Figure 2 – it is not clear for policymakers. Therefore either
more text is needed or the presentations (graphics) need to be
changed.
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
ACC, add to footnote 3
Thank you
TIA, no space for details in
SPM, but maybe more emphasis
on negative cost potetial
See A-18
See A-18
UNCLEAR
ACC, replace figure with fig 1.5
Action
for
chapter
6
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 7 of 348